Who's your candidate for mayor? Vote today

|
(188)

If the mayor's race were held today, who would be your top choice?

 

Free polls from Go2poll.com

Comments

Only you Arthur, would openly make such a crass bigoted comment.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 11:03 am

Really Arthur? Really? Munchkins?

Posted by Ian Waters on May. 01, 2011 @ 11:41 pm

Leland Yee is a very qualified candidate.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

Leland Yee

Posted by Guest on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

So does Ed Lee.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 1:19 pm

snapper!!!!

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 8:15 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 3:50 pm

Danielle Steele

Posted by Brock Keeling on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

So Eric,

Leland Yee doesn't like SF rent control in its present form and has no concern about killing a quarter million sharks a day for his soup. He's also changed his vote over 100 times at the legislature after-the-fact. Can't make up his mind? And, you endorse him. Two honest questions.

1. Are you claiming (as you usually do) that your stand represents the SF Green Party?
I'm a Green and you certainly don't represent me.

2. Have you or the organization that pays your salary received any money from Leland?

go Giants!

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 9:02 pm

Do you still believe Jews are "the most arrogant people on earth" and that "these people have been killing their political opponents for thousands of years?"

Since we're getting all inquisitive it'd be nice if you answered a few questions about past statements of your own.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 9:32 pm

First to your specific questions:

1) This is my endorsement personally. The SF Green Party hasn't chosen yet. And in fact, contrary to your claim, I almost never make my statements on blogs on behalf of the SF Green Party. You'll know when I do so, because I always specifically and clearly note in posts when I am citing a specific position of the party.

2) Not one penny. Nor any non-monetary donations of any kind. This is simply my own strategic view of how we should vote.

Look. Yee's politics have shifted far to the left since he gained statewide office. He seems to be clearly signaling to the progressive community that he wants to become a progressive leader.

In this election, because I would much rather risk potential backpedalling from Leland Yee (rather than have a mayor completely controlled by Downtown, Willie Brown, Rose Pak, and Steve Kawa) I am willing to cross my fingers and make Yee my third ranked choice; because the alternative could be -much- worse.

Yee is the Jean Quan of our Mayor's race, and if we can't get our best choice, then we'd better damned well be smart and make sure that Yee wins out over Chiu, Herrera, Ting, and Dufty.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 10:17 am

Or it could mean we are just not well informed on Leland Yee.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

It would be nice if there was a fiscal conservative, social liberal choice....is there a moderate in San Francisco willing to come forward?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 12:16 am

Realistically, Avalos' numbers on this poll are obviously heavily inflated due to this being a Guardian poll. However, what we do see is that the 3 of the frontrunner candidates, Chiu, Herrera and Yee are roughly tied, although Chiu has a narrow lead of the 3 as of now.

Based off of what we also know from other polling is that Yee is the most divisive of the 3 front runners. Although there is major support for Yee, there is a large amount of people who will vote for anyone but Yee. I believe this gives a distinct edge to Chiu who is not as divisive with the Chinese vote as Yee is.

If Asian voters consistently vote for Asian candidates, the presence of exactly 3 Asian names throws a wrench in the efforts of non-Asian candidates like Herrera to get 1st or even 2nd and 3rd place votes of this important voting bloc. I believe this will prove decisive in allowing Chiu to come out as the eventual winner, but this will no doubt be close.

These are some other factors I believe will prove advantageous for Chiu:
*Chiu is relatively young and will appeal to the young condo dwelling types that are heavily shifting the politics and population of San Francisco, which already worked for Jane Kim.
*While there are those on the far left who feel betrayed by Chiu and will not vote for him, this is not true of all progressives. Chiu will still receive 1st choices from some progressives if not 2nd and 3rds.
*The Asian vote has been proven to be very cohesive.
*The Twitter issue will give Chiu votes from moderates.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 1:36 am

Jane Kim's margin of victory was not that wide and not in the condos, it was in the Tenderloin and it required hard rock mining by dedicated progressive activists, more than half of whom are not down for a repeat performance, perhaps even down for a campaign to the contrary.

Ditto on Chiu, his 2008 campaign relied on progressive support, support which will just not be there this time around. Avalos' entry into the race has already peeled off the loosely bound progressive enviros from Chiu.

District One is an example of how Chinese votes transfer, primarily ideologically and then by ethnicity. Wang's votes went to Lee at a much higher than to Mar, ideologically different with Chinese surnames. The Asian vote is cohesive when taken along ideological lines.

There are divisions within the Chinese American communities, Rose Pak represents but one small faction. That faction is at war with Leland Yee. The fact is that David Chiu's days in this race are numbered, Ed Lee will enter the race soon and Chiu will be toast, both now and in November 2012.

Leland plays for keeps and has a strong record of winning and of retaining relationships over time, not closing doors. David Chiu's uncivil behavior towards progressives indicates that he cannot be trusted to come back around. Leland might fuck any one of us on any given issue, but comes back to partner on the next issue, Leland's cooties apply to the deed, not the dude.

Of course, the Willie Brown crowd is going to attack Leland, because they know that the first thing Leland will do in 2012 is to fire Steve Kawa and wrest the machinery of contract and entitlement granting away from Brown's grubby little paws. Whenever anyone boosts David Chiu's "third way," they are pimping for Willie Brown's first way.

The voters rejected this crap when it Brown was operating above board and they will reject it again once Brown and Pak have resurfaced from the political sewers.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 7:42 am

To attribute Jane Kim's victory solely to the work of progressive activists wouldn't be completely true, as a lot of her manpower also came from young Asian American supporters and CCDC. Analysis of HowSFVotes.com shows that in a two choice comparison between Kim and Walker, it shows that Jane Kim's margins of victory over her were largest in SOMA and not the Tenderloin. Indeed, the only places Sparks won were in SOMA as well, and her votes most likely transferred to Kim. The Twitter tax exemption is only likely to lead to even more support from the condo crowd for her and Chiu.

Chiu may of utilized a lot of prog support in his previous race, but it's important to note that D3 is not by any means a progressive enclave. In order to win, it would of required having wide appeal to win as decisively as he did there. Avalos' entry surely will take away a large swath of 1st choice votes for everyone, but this does not only affect Chiu. No candidate can win without a coalition of support, and Avalos' entry only further entrenches the progressive vote in a losing situation. Unless progs vote on an all prog slate or don't give 2nd or 3rd choices, Chiu, Yee and Herrera will still win votes. Not to mention, Eric Mar's endorsement of Chiu shows that Asian progressives are more than willing to support Chiu, which only further puts non-Asian progs in a continually losing situtation against him.

Also, while the Asian vote obviously does still vote by ideology, the point is that they vote as a bloc nonetheless. This means that even Asians who vote for Yee will not exclude Chiu from 2nd and 3rd choice votes. Yee on the other hand will likely not receive the same treatment since an "anyone but Yee" is far more established amongst the Chinese community than any such "anyone but Chiu" opinion. While Yee has a long history of winning, he also has never participated in a ranked choice election. In a ranked choice election, the person who is has the most opposition is probably not going to be the winner, and that person has so far been established to be Yee by a huge margin.

Chiu did deliver a huge blow to the progressives, but the progressives did not help the situation in anyway. It's myopic to only see things as Chiu being uncivil to progressives, the flip side is that progressives have attempted to throw him under the bus. It's clear that Avalos, Campos and Mirkarimi prevented the chance of Chiu as interim mayor and also tried to prevent his re-election as board president. By not even coming around Chiu after it was clear that he would win, they only further guaranteed that it would not be in Chiu's interest to play ball with them in return. Their egos, lack of compromise and failure to see that Chiu voted with them on most issues has only ensured that they will be on the losing side of things at the BOS by allowing moderates to win him over.

If voters have rejected Brown so much, they sure have a funny way of electing him and his disciples repeatedly. Also, lets be honest, if Ed Lee enters the race, which I don't think he will, he will cream everyone, not just Chiu. I somewhat doubt this though, as Ed Lee has not established himself as a liar and would not seem like the kind of person who want to put himself in a situation where the Board would be extremely pissed at him.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 10:00 am

I agree with Arthur, and you've demonstrated this as well, that David Chiu has no values other than David Chiu. That doesn't last long.

Mar has endorsed Avalos.

Willie Brown laid the groundwork for last November's elections in the shadows. Now he and Rose Pak are out of the shadows. The conservative C soured on that team ten years ago and don't seem to be warming up to the cancerous development scenarios pushed by the boosters.

Combine that with unified progressives, and the Willie Brown coalition out of the shadows and more vulnerable is in for a fight. Progressives and Leland Yee seem to be making overtures towards an anti-Brown/Pak alliance, and that is what is capable of taking down Herrera/Chiu and even Lee.

Thus, it remains to be seen whether the most hated is Leland Yee or Willie and Rose as manifest through their Lee or Chiu proxies, and to whom IRV will serve up the Janey Reilly/Don Perata shit sandwich. And nobody has really vetted Ed Lee in a campaign with opposition research, have they?

When Chiu found it "not in his interests to play ball" with progressives, he picked a fight that exposed his politics of civility, conciliation and collaboration for the tawdry fraud that it is, reversing polarities on a dime to serve his transactional immediate interests. Obama learned last fall what the consequences are of abandoning one's electoral coalition for an opposite governing coalition.

There are political consequences to political actions such as Chiu has taken. Chiu can be taken out in 2012 in D3 after he loses in November because he's shown his hand as a fraud and nobody can trust him.

As far as D6 goes, the votes are where the votes are, and they're not where they aren't.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 10:29 am

To say that Chiu has no values is not a realistic depiction if you consider that Chiu has not flip flopped or wildly gone from one extreme to the other, which ironically sounds more like Yee. Chiu has always been somewhere between progressive and moderate. Compromise and coalition building is what wins in ranked choice elections. The only difference for why progressives don't mind Yee's shift is because he has shifted left.

While Brown and Pak are more "out of the shadows" now, it doesn't change the fact that polling has shown astoundingly high opposition to Yee. Brown and Pak are not running, there names aren't on the ballot. With exceptions of those who follow this sort of thing, Pak is still not on the radar of most San Franciscans. If Pak opposition was big enough it would have translated to higher amounts of Chiu opposition, so Yee is clearly the Perata of this race

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 12:29 pm

Leland never made any pretensions that he was not politically eclectic. David Chiu continues to prevaricate contextually claiming that he holds political values other than his own immediate self interest.

Avalos sucks the oxygen out of Chiu's room.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 3:23 pm

Your assertions about Chiu just don't jive with reality.

Chiu didn't just deliver a major blow to progressives, he provided the coup de grâce to demolish the previous progressive control of the Board of Supervisors, and keep the Mayor's office firmly under the control of the Downtown machine. In one disgustingly selfish and stupid move, he single-handedly gave control of the entire city government to Downtown for the first time in over a decade.

Chiu utterly betrayed the progressive movement when he did this (while proving himself an easily manipulated fool) and enough of us are clear on this point that we will not only deny him our votes, we will work -very- diligently to make sure that he does not win the election.

Chiu simply does not have enough progressive support or respect to win the election.

He has completely screwed himself by siding with Willie Brown.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 10:41 am

Don't jive with reality or yours?

Your call to deny Chiu votes is a lot of big talk. When have progressives been able to show nearly that much cohesion? It was because of that lack of cohesion that Chiu became president in the first place. Your progressives couldn't even keep Jane Kim from winning, even after denying her a 2nd place endorsement at the DCCC. Whatever you guys are doing it sure looks like a winning strategy...for Chiu and co.

Good luck convincing every progressive out there to make a Faustian pact with Leland Yee, just because David Chiu made you angry.

.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

We don't need to convince 'every' progressive to shun Chiu in favor of Yee, we just need to convince enough progressives (and other voters) to leave Chiu out of their rankings to result in his losing the race.

And again (perhaps you need some reading glasses or ritalin so that you can focus on what I and others wrote previously) Chiu didn't just make us 'angry', he undermined and ended progressive majority control of the Board and entrenched Downtown in the mayors office. This is not some small matter.

Finally, progressives were not trying to keep Kim from winning. A great many of us (including myself) ranked her above Walker in our endorsements. Core progressives only turned against Kim when she helped Chiu betray the base.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

Your plan is absurdly petty and you seem more intent on making Chiu lose than actually electing one of your own, although you've been trying to fool yourself and others that Leland Yee is somehow on your side.

Okay, so Chiu didn't just make you angry, he made you cry like a baby. Happy?

Maybe you didn't do it, but you very well know there was a big push by some progressives to not have Kim even run. How do you explain the DCCC not even giving her a 2nd place endorsement?

The real amazing thing is that progressives are great at shooting themselves in the foot with a shotgun, and they keep on doing it. For whatever reason you helped elect Jane Kim and you now regret it. Progressive supes made Chiu president, and they regret it. Now you want to elect Leland Yee because you think he's one of you guys. Right...

Oh yeah, guess you guys were happy about voting for Nader in 2000. That didn't at all have unintended consequences.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 3:16 pm

Well, at least now I know I'm debating someone who fundamentally fails to grasp political reality when it comes to forming a true opposition in this country.

Nader was clearly the best choice every time he ran, and the disastrous Obama presidency proves this unequivocally.

If you haven't even advanced beyond knee jerk neo-liberal Democrat apologism, you just don't get what this conversation is fundamentally about.

Chiu is a local equivalent to Obama, and therefore extremely dangerous to our community and democracy. So it is equally important to both elect the first true progressive mayor in decades, -and- to ensure that Chiu doesn't get anywhere near room 200.

A well played ranked choice campaign will accomplish both.

And while I wish I could be as enthusiastic about Yee as you are pretending I am. I of course am not, as can be seen from my previous comments.

Yee is our crucial fallback candidate, who we are willing to stand with, to make sure that Willie Brown doesn't get control of San Francisco again. Yee would have to taken even stronger and lasting progressive positions to convince us that he is 'one of us'.

What about the nuance of this position is so difficult for you to grasp...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 4:16 pm

Sorry, the Greens are the ones who fail to grasp reality, as in you guys barely exist anymore, and you have no chance of winning elections. Isn't it telling that Kim and Mirkarimi left your party. Imagine, if Matt Gonzalez was mayor today, would he still be a member of the Green party, would he be jumping on the pension tsunami, would he be sharing stages with Republicans and endorsing them as he has recently? That's some great record of loyalty from some of your most prominent former members, or maybe they were just smart enough to jump ship.

You guys are more intent on sticking it to democrats than beating the real enemy and too doctrinaire to realize that Obama has brought this country closer to real universal health care than any other president in recent history. You guys would rather fall on your own sword and die trying than live to fight another day. Keep acting like you guys didn't help Bush win in 2000. But hey, at least you stuck it to the democrats right?

Face it, your brand of progressivism is fractured and has no chance of winning city-wide election. By giving your 3rd choice votes to Yee, you only further ensure your irrelevance. This contest will come down to Chiu, Herrera or Yee no matter what you do. Must suck to be irrelevant.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 11:38 pm

"Guest', I have just spent the last several posts on this thread defending my choice for Yee as 3rd rank? Did I not also rank John Avalos, a Democrat , as my 2nd choice? You just won the most-irrelevant-and-inaccurate-reply-to-a-previous-post award.

Getting back to the question you are purposely ducking with all your meaningless non sequitur verbiage:

What is it that you don't grasp about the nuance of supporting Yee as the third ranked choice?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 2:48 pm

I get it perfectly, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a half baked revenge plot motivated by emotion that you'll regret if you actually make Yee mayor. Who on this message board actually isn't already staring at your post and wondering if you even know who Leland Yee is.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 8:19 pm

I don't hold grudges, and I don't have time for revenge. This is about ending the Downtown machine's control of room 200 before it completely wrecks the City. And It's also about teaching upstart politicians that they mess with the progressive base at their peril. If we -don't- make sure Chiu and others see consequences, they will just keep pulling more nonsense.

And yes. I know all about Yee, and understand the dilemma.

Got any better ideas?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 10:39 pm

Yeah, give Chiu a fair shake, and realize that one can have a position between progressive and moderate.

Chiu was never an indiscriminate downtown supporter, and has almost 100% been for tenants over landlords. To act like Chiu has abandoned everything he stood for before is revisionism. I know H. Brown always thought that Chiu was some sort of secret Republican sleeper agent, but that's just ridiculous. Heck, Chiu even supports the shark fin ban, whereas Yee didn't and then backpedaled a bit. Chiu has been consistent with his support of tenants, whereas Yee has been less consistent as others here have noted.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 11:49 pm

As Marc has repeatedly pointed out, Chiu doesn't have an ideology.

David Chiu supports David Chiu, no matter who he has to screw to do so.

That selfishness is why he will fail.

No one can trust him. Not the least his supposed new political friends, who don't give a rats ass about him, and will turn on him at the drop of a hat if it suits their purposes.

And it will...

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 01, 2011 @ 12:34 am

Even if you can't trust him, the progressives can't act like they don't need his votes. If they want to only emphasize where Chiu is different than them, then they will never get anything done so long as he and Kim hold the middle. Do the math, even if Kim and Mar vote with progressives, that's 5/11, so Chiu will always be the crucial swing vote.

If progressives knew how to cut their losses they would of at least help re-elect him as Board President. Instead, they've burned bridges and would rather let ideology and emotions guide them. By allowing the moderates to secure Chiu's presidency, Chiu owes nothing to the progressive side of the board.

You can't even trust the guy who was the last progressive mayor in recent history, so who cares about trust. If progressives continue to excommunicate its members because they didn't fall in like on each and every issue, and not actually by looking at the wider picture, then they will continue to see their numbers dwindle. Your proclivity to engage in witch hunts amongst yourselves is not productive and only alienates people. .

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 6:23 am

You are advocating the political equivalent of a woman going back to her rapist because she needs to just shut up and take it. We're blowing off the battered women's shelter and calling the cops on the rapist and won't even testify against him. We'll just take justice into our own hands and take the fucker out at the ballot box for taking advantage of our resources to gain power and then fuck us against our will.

It is likely that Chiu will not be a problem for progressives in very short order.

Either Chiu will be recalled, he will be defeated in 2012 or he will realize that he was too smart for politics and managed to paint himself into a corner where nobody trusts him, and he will return to the private sector where he will take money to make life easier for the nuclear waste disposal industry, the Christian Coalition and the Republican Party back at Grassroots.com.

David Chiu played his hand too soon because of a fit of pique that his ambitions for room 200 were checked by progressives. Now nobody trusts him.

-marc

Posted by marcos on May. 01, 2011 @ 7:22 am

Don't be silly. Chiu's beating Yee and Herrera by a good margin on a Guardian poll. I think that says a lot.

The outrage against Chiu comes only from such a small faction, one that can't even unify on a strategy against him. Your talk of a recall is unrealistic.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 12:05 pm

Give me a break. Online polls are worthless. For all we know, Chiu has a bunch of devotees and staff that are actively working to drive up his poll count.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 01, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

Wouldn't that be a sad reflection of Yee and Herrera's campaign if they can't even beat Chiu at that sort of game. They have way more funding too.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 2:09 pm

Herrera & Yee could probably care less about the Guardian poll. It's not their venue. But, Chiu, who is currently feverishly working to maintain the absurd fiction that he is a progressive, cares a great deal. His team has more incentive to inflate the results.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 01, 2011 @ 2:15 pm

That's absurd. You're the one claiming Yee is making overtures to you guys about being a progressive, so wouldn't this be his venue more than Chiu or Herrera's? Instead he's coming in behind Herrera. All 3 of them know they need votes from the Guardian crowd if they want to win, so Chiu's not the only one.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 4:03 pm

Sweet Zombie Jesus, get off whatever craptacular publishing platform you were sold by the pretty boys downstairs at digg and get a comment filtering system with voting and IP identification etc etc etc

Would you PRINT a page like this? left guttering that would make raygun blush :)

Fix it! dammit.

Posted by fixit! on May. 01, 2011 @ 11:51 pm

Jane Kim ran as a progressive and has since alienated the progressive chunk of her campaign team. Why would progressives have broken out into a sweat to prevent someone from winning in whom we had invested political capital and who had no previous demonstrated record of voting like Bevan Dufty?

David Chiu ran as a progressive, still posits himself as a progressive, and has since alienated almost everyone who supported him in 2008. District 3 will not stand for a Supervisor in the Planning pocket of Willie Brown, there are too many older white people in too many expensive homes who do not cotton well to that booster vision for a hyper developed San Francisco.

If Kim and Chiu's political polarity shifts have done anything, it has unified progressives in a way that I've not seen in more than a decade.

The only party to a Faustian bargain here is David Chiu, and I don't see him playing the part of Faust.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 10:38 am

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Jane Kim was always going to be on David Chiu's side of things nearly 100% of the time. You also knew Pak and Brown were supporting Kim, and you still supported her over Walker. This just confirms exactly what I said about progressives making decisions they'll regret.

Chiu hasn't lost as much support as you think, and his appeal has likely broadened. Apparently he has enough support to be ranked #2 on this poll, on the Guardian no less. If he had no support, his campaign would be floundering like Bevan Dufty's. Also, when was Chiu 100% for condos and landlords suddenly? What about his stance against converting The Fairmont to condos? The more you fail to recognize where Chiu still falls in line with progressives, is tantamount to underestimating how many votes he will still get from those on the left.

Oh yeah, and uniting doesn't mean much if you're talking about a handful of people gathering at Daly's Dive or Avalos, Campos and Mirkarimi losing every vote. "You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion."

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 8:39 pm

Joanna Rees

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 6:34 am

Joanna Rees

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 6:35 am

If neither Ed Lee nor Mark Leno runs, David Chiu will have the edge in the mayoral race.

That's because Chiu is totally devoted to promoting his own career, with no regard for ideology, whether on the right or the left.

He tells both the moderates and the progressives what they want to hear. Then he brokers cloak-room deals at the last minute, with a view to furthering his own self-interest.

In other words, he's a typical American politician. The System is designed to promote the careers of such politicians. They rise to the top quickly. Chiu has a bright political future before him.

The progressive alternative in this race, John Avalos, will be dragged down by his own supporters. Most of them share the bunker mentality that Chris Daly popularized among progressives. They have no idea of how to talk to undecided middle voters, who are pivotal in a mayoral race.

Bevan Dufty is going nowhere fast. He could have owned the issue of neighborhood safety and ridden it into the mayor's office. But he got cold feet at the supes when Homelessness Inc packed the chamber against the civil-sidewalks law. He no longer stands for anything.

Dennis Herrera is okay on neighborhood safety and some gay issues but weak otherwise. Despite his last name, he is not likely to fare well among Latino voters once they discover he can't speak Spanish.

As to Leland Yee, no Chinese-American candidate can be elected mayor if vociferously opposed by Rose Pak. It's doubtful that the two will be reconciled.

The candidacies of Michela Alioto-Pier, Joanna Rees, and Phil Ting are the equivalent of vanity books in the publishing industry. Each of these three will get a chance to sound off, and no one will remember anything they said after the election is over.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 8:28 am

I can't imagine how irrelevant you sound right now to anyone in San Francisco.

"Dennis Herrera is okay on neighborhood safety and some gay issues but weak otherwise. Despite his last name, he is not likely to fare well among Latino voters once they discover he can't speak Spanish."

Why not travel back to 1492 and blog to the Queen of Spain:

"Natives unlikely to fare well not speaking Spanish"
- Christopher Columbus

Posted by Ian Waters on May. 01, 2011 @ 11:57 pm

As attractive as Leland Yee might be otherwise, his culturalization of extreme animal torture knocks him off the list. The argument that because my culture smashes in the skulls of baby cows with claw hammers and throws new born male chicks alive into meat shredders is a reason to allow his culture to cut off the fins and tails of live sharks and throw them back in the water is weak.

Animal torture may have to be addressed slowly, one issue at a time, but it has to be addressed.

Anyone who advocates for animal torturers has something wrong with them, and right now I mean Leland Yee and Ed Lee for advocating shark torture, and frog torture in China town here in SF where the practice is to cut the legs off of live frogs and toss them into plastic buckets to croak and bleed. Its pathological whoever does it, for whatever reason.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 11:57 am

Your critique of Yee on this issue is apt (if exaggerative). And Yee's weak position on that tissue may cost him support from the SF Green Party and others.

But Yee's position on shark finning is simply pandering to Chinatown conservatives and small businesses in an effort to secure their vote.

And Yee is actually supporting restrictions on fishers and fisheries to ban them from finning sharks. The real problem with Yee's position is not that he is not making some effort, but that what he is supporting is a failed strategy that won't work.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 2:46 pm

I will never vote for Leland Yee given his views about shark finning.

Posted by The Commish on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

“the city will continue to survive the mediocrity of its governing class.”

- AE

“Only you Arthur, would openly make such a crass bigoted comment.”

- Eric Brooks

I love watching people who call themselves progressives make excuses for the ineptitude of the political establishment.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 7:27 am
...

I was referring to your 'munchkin' comments genius.

The fact that you didn't grasp this, says it all.

And I am sure that you will write a reply that shows even more clearly that you continue to fail to grasp it...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 11:24 am

"I was referring to your 'munchkin' comments genius."

- Eric Brooks

I love watching people who claim to be progressives make excuses for the diminished capacity of the political establishment.

Do it some more, Eric!

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 2:27 pm